The American University in Dubai’s Model United Nations presents

the

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Background Guide

HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Welcome Letter:

Greetings Delegates,

We welcome you to the International Court of Justice High School Committee. We are excited to meet the passionate individuals of this committee that will fill in the shoes of advocates and judges with one common purpose: serving justice.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of six key ‘organs’ of the United Nations (UN). It is described as the “principal judicial organ” due to its mandate and assigned role. Established in June of 1945, the role of the Court is to resolve and settle legal disputes by international bodies (states and countries) that have been presented to it by the United Nations. Composed of 15 skilled judges specifically elected for their expertise, they must mediate the settlement in multiple ways. This includes enquiry, judicial settlement, conciliation, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Overlooking contentious cases with serious effects on international relations and possibilities of initiating devastating conflict. Aiming to help settle and dissolve any viable incidents referred to them by taking vital action and following international law which guides the process of sanctioning, provisions, and diffuses threats.

Our topics of discussion are ones that have deep concern from countries all over the world. The first topic, ‘Case Concerning the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala River (Bolivia VS Chile)’ is one of a conflict of interest and involves deep motivation by both parties. The second topic, ‘The 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran VS United States of America)’entails a grave claim of an alleged breaking of contract and the lack of abiding by, and referring to, the Treaty of Amity, established in 1955. These topics are sure to catalyze incredibly powerful debate with deep tissue residing between the cracks of history, and its effects on the futures of members of the ICJ, and those who find themselves in the line of fire.

Thank you for joining AUDMUN2020, which will surely be a wonderful experience for newcomers, regular guests, and experienced members. We aim to create an atmosphere of excitement, fun, and productivity, with a promise of working towards united resolution.

Warm Regards,

Chairs of ICJ

TOPIC 1: Case Concerning the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala River (Bolivia VS Chile).

Introduction

Instituting proceedings for claims and counterclaims were brought to the ICJ (by Bolivia, followed by Chile) for the use of a natural water resource named the “Silala River system”. The Silala River system is a known environmental resource of water that spears international borders between said states. The originating water-course surface spans 4,400 meters above sea level in Bolivian territory. The total length of the river system (of which is situated in Bolivia and Chile) spans 8.5 Kilometers, 4.7 Kilometers of which is found in Chilean territory, and 3.8 Kilometers of which is located in Bolivian territory. The July 1st, 2016 order of publication by the ICJ recognizes an International Water-course as a “System of surface waters and ground waters constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into common terminus. Parts of which are situated in different states.”(ICJ, 2016). The scheme runs across and overland amongst the boundary of Chile and Bolivia. Its foundation tributary stems from ground-water areas such as the Cajones Ravines and the Orientales, which are both consumed by an aquifer that also breaks through the border. It is found that the overland stream of the Silala is caused by the innate proclivity of the topography in the lands situated by the terrain.

The ICJ, by way of International Law, is set to disseminate and resolve claims and counterclaims made by both states. Disputes and tension-filled discussions have failed to reach an agreeable conclusion and therefore was attached to a governing International Court recognized by the UN. The Bolivian claim suggests that Bolivia is entitled to 100 per cent of the Silala system and that it is not identified as an International watercourse, denying any unauthorized body to use the waters. Bolivia claims that the use of the waters subsequently means payments must be made and debts must be paid off for the “unlawful use of the river system”. It is important to note that the identification of the Silala as an International watercourse spanning both Bolivia and Chile was not disputed until 1997, when the stated claim was proclaimed and action was taken against Chile for the consumption of the river system. Chile’s request proposes that the Court declare and identify that the Silala River system is in law an international watercourse. Therefore, the use of the resource be governed by customary transnational directive and holds the right of Chile to use its waters found in the Chilean territory.

History

The origins and early stages of this dispute unfolded after about a century of common ground understanding. From early October through July of 1906, Bolivia and Chile recognized and identified the Silala River as an International Watercourse in numerous unifying records. The 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship (Chile and Bolivia, 1906 and 1908) and rights to the use of the system through concessions approved by the two governments in 1906 and 1908 by Chile and Bolivia, respectively. This not only allowed for the use of the system by both states, but established definitive boundaries between them, defined the location of terrain, and granted the right for Chile to extend a concession to third party private companies to use its resources abiding by location agreements. In 1942, the Chile-Bolivia Mixed Boundary Commission (MBC) was able to (under the protocol on the maintenance of border pointers) verify the presence of the river system on both sections of the boundary. These accords and reports were abided by and followed from 1904 up until 1999. In that time, Chile was able to use its resources (in Chilean territory) with no preservation, management control, or regulation from Bolivia, and was not expected to make payments as per numerous agreements from 1904 to 1950.

This all changed when allegations were made against Bolivia (by members of the Chilean and Bolivian media) in Spring of 1996, suggesting that efforts were made to artificially avert water flow into or out of the Chilean border. Bolivia then issued a statement seemingly in response to the assertions, which concerned the downstream Chilean portion of the river system, rebutting all allegations produced against them. It was then made clear that credence was given to Chile as to use of the river system with no benefit to Bolivia. However, it was also announced that this would be a question of symposium of bilateral outline. Subsequently, on May 14th, 1997, Bolivia officially rescinded and overturned a concession given to a large third-party private company named FCAB (Chilean) in 1908 for the use of the waters. Reason for which is a claim for its unnecessary use since no purpose was found in steam locomotives and industrial consumption (technological advancement rendering methods used by FCAB counterproductive). Over the next 10 years, Bolivia would continue to claim that the Silala belonged to Bolivia exclusively, withdrawing from previous agreements and insisting that Chile has no right in using the Silala without payment. Discussions were attempted and bilateral agendas were produced, however, no agreements were made, and efforts made by Chile for compromises rendered failures. The conflict-filled dispute resulted in grave statements being made by authorities in Bolivia. On the 23rd of March 2016, Bolivia announced its inducement to provide these claims before the ICJ, and counterclaims were made by Chile in response. Now awaiting the mandating process of the Court, in accordance with International law, to settle and end clashes by these two states over the use of the Silala.

Analysis

The Silala River system is perhaps one of the most useful natural resources in the area for both states. Its high altitude, large quantity, and reliability provide means for industrial and compact utilization. The waters have historically been used by Chile (through agreements with Bolivia) for over a century and was used for different purposes. Such as presenting water allocation to the city of Antofagasta, Baquedano, and Siera Gorda. This system provides a pathway for private companies to make use of the land through mining, fish plants, farming systems and locomotive industries. It delivers opportunity for civilians of states to build privatization and improve their respective economies. This river system is responsible for the lives of those in South America and affect the lateral agreements of trade made by Europe, Asia, and South America. Its governing use and ownership could catapult the Bolivian or Chilean industry and so is a matter of great concern for both parties, and the world.

Bolivian claims suggest the river system was used unnecessarily, and without cautious concern. Allegations brought forth against it raised anger in the governing authorities and accumulated over the years to produce counterproductive political unrest. In fact, 3 years after annulling previous accordance, Bolivia granted the use of the waters to the private company DUCTEC S.R.L for a period of 40 years which adversely affected the nature of the agreement on the Chilean end. It allowed for the exportation and commercialization of the waters for industrial use and consumption to other states. Chile formally objected to these surprising concessions (on grounds of disregarding national accordance) resulting in the attempted collaboration and discussion from 2000, to 2008. Which turned out to be unsuccessful. On the 26th of February 2002, Bolivian Minister of Foreign Affairs vehemently rejected these negotiations. President Evo Morales of Bolivia announced the countries wishes to defend the waters and stated “Every day, Chile makes an illegal and cunning use of that natural resource without compensating even a cent. This abusive and arbitrary behavior that undermines our heritage cannot continue.” Not too long after that, the President made two further statements and concluded by suggesting settling this conflict by means of the ICJ. He states, “Stealing waters from the department of Potosi is my accusation.” (President Evo Morales) Adding, “The Chilean authorities are lying when they call this an international river.”(President Evo Morales) These communications and disputes involve motive for both parties, claims must be dealt with in harmony with international law, and the permitted solutions shall be reached by members of the International Court of Justice.

Starter Sources

• Latest developments: Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia): International Court of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/162

• Cour internationale de Justice - International Court of Justice: International Court of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from https://www.icj-cij.org/

• The Silala Dispute: Between International Water Law and the Human Right to Water. (2017, July 09). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from http://www.qil-qdi.org/silala-dispute-international-water-law-human-right-water-forthcoming/

• The Silala Dispute: Between International Water Law and the Human Right to Water. (2017, July 09). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from http://www.qil-qdi.org/silala-dispute-international-water-law-human-right-water-forthcoming/

• https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/153/18616.pdf “System of surface waters and ground waters constituting by virtue of their physical relationship a unitary whole and normally flowing into common terminus. Parts of which are situated in different states.”(ICJ, 2016).

• What's in a name? The Silala waters and the applicability of international watercourse law. (2017, May 31). Retrieved October 27, 2020, from http://www.qil-qdi.org/whats-name-silala-waters-applicability-international-watercourse-law/ The 1904 Treaty of Peace and Friendship

TOPIC 2: Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran VS United States of America).

Introduction

On the 16th of July, 2018, an issue of an alleged violation of a treaty (spotted by the Islamic Republic of Iran pointed towards the United States of America), pertaining to the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights – hereby named the ‘Treaty of Amity’ – was presented before the International Court of Justice by the Islamic Republic of Iran with an adjacent claim. It concerns disagreements of constitutional classification, tricky particulars, economic and industrial exasperation, nuclear disturbance, as well as trade of goods and services. This issue comes to fruition through the previously mentioned Treaty of Amity, which is a legal agreement signed by the United States of America and Iran in 1955 to build an extensive standing association with regards to the trade of properties and facilities, foodstuffs, fiscal discourse, investments, and the governing control and provision of consular relations. All of which is predicated around the basis of reciprocity of stance, mutual benefit, and impartiality of treatment… stating, “There shall be firm and enduring peace and sincere friendship” (Treaty of Amity, USA and Iran, 1955) between both parties. It sets the foundation for all recent diplomatic relations between them and has solidified fixed boundaries thus becoming capable of moving liberally under law with specific requests met.

The International Court of Justice aims to disintegrate and resolve the matter by abiding with international law that is constituted and reinforced by the UN. As per the Treaty of Amity, both parties agree and recognize the ICJ as holder of jurisdiction with principle to set a final verdict. The Iranian contention claims, specifically, that the USA are not within their right to reimpose sanctions (of which a variety have been reinstated) as per the pacts met in the 1955 Treaty of Amity which precludes from the permitting and the overriding of the USA from Iran’s military apparatus, circulation of arms, and nuclear-powered propagation, but simply traces economic and industrial measures of trade, and vice versa. Therefore, action taken by the United States to reimpose said sanctions (which have been lifted due to withdrawal from the 2015 JCPoA agreement) is unjustified and should be disposed of as per the signed treaty. Iran requests of the ICJ to reverse the perceived authority of the USA, to simply tolerate previous accords, and to decrease its involvement in Iranian armed decision making, weapon manufacture, and nuclear proliferation. USA claims that these sanctions are justified and were a necessary action to be taken as Iran’s ignorance to conform to previous sanctions (although since lifted) is evidence of wrong doing and poses a major threat when it comes to the production of mass ordnance and the construction of armaments of destruction. Referring to preceding instances of Iran’s failure to meet contracts since 1979, with a deep-rooted history of fraudulent misinformation and dangerously

meddled powerful weaponry. It states that it is for the interests of international peace and security and is an educated scheme to soften what could be an uncontrollable threat to many countries around the world.

History

The sequence of events that have led to the involvement of the International Court of Justice began through a connection between the USA and several other states which recognized the irresponsible attachment of Iran to nuclear supremacy which could be a factor of a quest to achieve political power and economic leverage. Therefore, a legal document named the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPoA) was signed on the 14th of July, 2015, which set boundaries, frequently monitored, and prohibited certain amounts of production of mass weaponry and nuclear power deemed unnecessary and dangerous in Iran. This shackled the freedom to pursue its underlying quest and forced to share essential information that would provide evidence of it accepting its ruling and would allow for transparency between the states. Through that period, the presidential administration changed and caused the newly appointed presidency to raise concern over the methods of examining its production. In fact, on the 13th of October 2017, President Donald Trump states that “Iran was not in compliance with its nuclear – related commitments under that agreement.” (Donald Trump, 2017)

This accumulated into the questioning of the agreement as a whole. So much so that the doubt eventually led to the withdrawal from the JCPoA on May 8th, 2018. With a previous statement that warned of the decision if the terms are not amended so as to add to the significance of the sanctions. This coupled with intent to place their own restrictions on Iran and is the premise of this case. On the same day, May 8th of 2018, the USA reinstated particular sanctions from the JCPoA and amended certain factors that were of disservice in their interest and would support their requested need of diminishing the propagation of nuclear power in Iran. As a consequence of what seems to be, in Iran’s claim, an irrefutably flawed method of gaining political leverage, it has led to conflicts and would be one of many in their recent friction filled rapport. The 1955 deal specifies the type of relationship the parties are to conform to. These sanctions which are to be re-imposed would amplify the already constricting way of life for Iranian authorities as it is not limited to their militia. It would have a major effect on their economy and pose a claimed ‘irreparable’ damage to the country and is argued to be based upon a violation of an almost century old treaty of compliance.

Analysis

This type of conflict is not one of unforeseen condition, as it is not the first case the International Court of Justice has dispensed with in terms of (not only these conflicting parties), but the treaty in question. The 1979 revolution caused extreme unrest and involved a crucial verdict from the ICJ to release American hostages from the US embassy in Iran. This, of course, is pointed out in the American case as evidence of Iran’s untrustworthy traits in holding nuclear power, and in ensuing treaties. In political common ground, this would be described as an unprecedented

relationship between two states as such deep conflict evolves often involving The Court and yet still manage to cite and conform to the present 1955 Treaty of Amity repeatedly. The 8th May reinstated sanctions placed on Iran are among the most significant and detrimental in recent history. President Donald Trump asserted his desire of wanting to apply ‘maximum pressure’ on Tehran’s government therefore compelling them to reach a renegotiation stage in a new accord.

Ever since the sanctions have been re-imposed, the Iranian economy has fallen into deep recession that surpassed their deepest in the last 15 years, being the 2012 inflation crisis. The sanctions affect the capability of Iran to use nuclear power plants to power their cities and has forced the shift to oil and gas industries to deliver needs through alternative methods of commerce. Not only have these sanctions completely barred the trade between Iran and the US but have also banned certain foreign countries from doing the same. This results in sudden plunges of foreign investment and isolates the map of trade immensely. Further, the sanctions played a major role in the absolute plummet of Iran’s oil output to almost half of its previous production. Most recently, Washington is responsible for the killing of Iranian commander Qasem Soleimani, leader and chief of the Quds force, resulting in Tehran firing missile strikes around US bases in Iraq and straddling the press with speculation of the early stages of a major World War at the hands of battle over oil reserves, nuclear power, and political leverage. Even oil prices dropped significantly, from Brent Crude Oil 67.91$ on January 6th, to 53.27$ on February 10th. A conflict of great importance with possible consequences of war and death, with implications on the way of life of day to day citizens on a major scale. The International Court of Justice must adhere to protocol and completely dismantle threats to either party, resolving the dispute entirely.

Starter Sources

• https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/175 • http://opiniojuris.org/2018/10/24/the-analysis-of-the-icj-order-in-the-case-concerning-

alleged-violations-of-the-treaty-of-amity-iran-v-us-who-is-the-real-winner/ • https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Treaty-of-Amity-Economic-

Relations-and-Consular-Rights-between-the-United-States-of-America-and-Iran-Aug.-15-1955.pdf

Bibliography

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE - icj-cij.org. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from

https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/169/169-20190225-ADV-01-00-FR.pdf

Hill-Cawthorne, W., & Hill-Cawthorne, L. (2018, October 03). The ICJ's Provisional Measures

Order in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty (Iran v United States). Retrieved October

26, 2020, from https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-icjs-provisional-measures-order-in-alleged-

violations-of-the-1955-treaty-iran-v-united-states/

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE - Iran Watch. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from

https://www.iranwatch.org/sites/default/files/175-20181003-pre-01-00-en.pdf

IRAN - United States Department of State. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Treaty-of-Amity-Economic-

Relations-and-Consular-Rights-between-the-United-States-of-America-and-Iran-Aug.-

15-1955.pdf

Latest developments: Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and

Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America): International Court

of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/175

Latest developments: Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia):

International Court of Justice. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from https://www.icj-

cij.org/en/case/162

Remarks by President Trump on Iran Strategy. (n.d.). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-iran-strategy/

The Analysis of the ICJ Order in the Case Concerning "Alleged Violations of the Treaty of Amity"

(Iran v. US): Who Is the Real Winner? (2018, October 24). Retrieved October 26, 2020,

from http://opiniojuris.org/2018/10/24/the-analysis-of-the-icj-order-in-the-case-

concerning-alleged-violations-of-the-treaty-of-amity-iran-v-us-who-is-the-real-winner/

The Silala Dispute: Between International Water Law and the Human Right to Water. (2017, July

09). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from http://www.qil-qdi.org/silala-dispute-international-

water-law-human-right-water-forthcoming/

The Silala Dispute: Between International Water Law and the Human Right to Water. (2017, July

09). Retrieved October 26, 2020, from http://www.qil-qdi.org/silala-dispute-international-

water-law-human-right-water-forthcoming/

This background guide has been reviewed and inspected by: 1) The AUDMUN’s executive Department of Committees & Research (Ali A. Kurukçi, Sidra Rahimy). 2) AUD’s Department of International & Middle Eastern Studies (Dr. Elham Seyedsayamdost, Omar Bortolazzi). 3) The Criminal Investigations Department, Abu Dhabi (CID).